Democratic presidential contenders trash NAFTA

>> Free Trade is NOT free when the playing field is unequal.<<

Well, we are never going to prevent other countries from having lower wages. So you can have variants on three choices:

1. Have trade with them with no agreement
2. Put up trade barriers to stop trade
3. Have trade with them in an agreement that forces as much of the same regulatory burden on them as there is on us.

NAFTA, President Reagan’s dream is the best deal we could get. Free Trade agreements are like democracy - for all their faults, they are still better than the alternatives.

Senator Harry Reid has renewable energy plan to leave coal in the dust

Renewable energy?

Fantastic...

So we are going to use our coal as much and as cleanly as possible until they get nuclear ramped up? Great!

Oh... they mean diverting the food supply to fuel and still staying dependent on oil from dictators.

Bummer. I thought for a minute we had a rational Senate Leader instead of a panderer with no common sense except for how to get elected.

>>In the week since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would do everything he could to block three proposed coal-fired power plants in Nevada, this much can be said:

He probably can carry off his threat, especially since they would be constructed on federal land. Just look at how he has stalled a waste repository at Yucca Mountain, where so much more is at stake for the nuclear power industry, which is clamoring for a place to bury radioactive fuel rods.

Environmentalists are embracing Reid's bold pronouncement, welcoming the high-profile addition to their campaign to shift the country away from fossil fuels at a pivotal moment.

But as the Democrat joins a growing chorus of politicians and environmentalists trying to distance the nation from coal, skeptics say he is putting his own state at risk because the nascent alternative-energy industry isn't ready to take on all of Nevada's energy needs.

Doug Fischer, a utilities analyst with the investment firm A.G. Edwards, said coal opponents, including Reid, could "put us in a bind where we're not going to have the energy we need."<<

Zimbabwe passes eavesdrop law

>>”The government defended the new law saying it was necessary to protect the country from international terrorism and espionage.”<<

The problem is this is exactly what you say when its true but also exactly what you say when its an excuse for a power grab. Either way its an invitation to abuse so...

If the reason is real, its still key to keep checks and balances in place.

And that is my concern about our government. I have no doubt the threat is real and the solution is sincerely directed at meeting that threat. I’m concerned about the inevitable tendency to mission creep into abuse and the removal of checks and balances.

Not because I think this government is going to come get me in the night - its because this is too much power to give to future Presidents. The unitary executive is too much like a king and not enough like an American President should be.

Is there ANYTHING physical science majors can't do?

There are exceptions to every rule, including this one....

1. Go out with Cheerleaders, Models or Actresses prior to the IPO or buyout

2. Pass up an opportunity to point out how much more grounded in reality we are than mathematicians and how much more grounded we are in science than engineers.

3. Know less than three jokes in each of the following categories: cows, Microsoft, mathematicians and engineers

Disclaimer: Point #3 only applies to those scientists who are functional enough to communicate with normal human beings.

Water, Evolution and God (Is our vision of God too small?)

From a discussion on FreeRepublic.com related to a story on World Net Daily called
Research: God did speak world into existence
Student's scientific documentation offers evidence of biblical account

>>1."Where did the water come from?
why is this a question as if it shows God cant exist?

2.Evolutionists cant explain it, yet say that Evolution is a forgone conclusion, and nothing else can be taught in schools...?

3. If the Evolutionists cant explain where the water came from ...why can they teach Evolution as Fact? yet God is
disproved by it??? <<

1. Water (on earth at least) is largely the product of volcanic outgassing (i.e. it came out of volcanoes) (footnote A)

2. Much of the water predated life on earth and thus it isn't primarily an evolution question but the early life forms added to the water content. (footnote B)

3. The theories related to evolution in no way disprove God. It was actually through the study of science and seeing the beauty, majesty and symmetry of the universe that I became open minded enough to be ready to believe when the time came and I had a personal experience with God. There is no conflict between exploring and learning about the universe and belief in God. Man, during the time the bible was written would not have been able to understand beyond the level of detail in the bible. We did not yet have concepts like "billions" or light years or atoms. (footnote C)

------------------

Footnote A. Other gasses produced by outgassing include carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), nitrogen (N2) and various sulfur gasses sulfur gases. BTW, the CO and the CO2 were largely used up by the weathering of minerals. That likely why there is so much calcium carbonate (limestone, seashells, chalk marble etc.) and silica (sand, quartz and part of limestone). There is some debate about the water content- there is a competing model called the accretion theory but it is contradicted by the banded iron formations and sulfide minerals.

Footnote B. I'm only a physicist - you could probably get a better answer from someone with a biology related background. But basically there was no free oxygen - rocks older than about 2 billion years contain banded iron layers that would not have formed if there was very much oxygen available. Outgasses from volcanoes contain basically no free oxygen so the oxygen of the atmosphere is almost completely the product of the photosynthetic activity of green plants.

Footnote C. Some of the things that led me to be open minded were the way that the math for the flow of water and the math for electricity are so similar - the way that the number pi appears everywhere from the tiniest particles to circles to distant stars and the way that everywhere we look patterns are found among seeming chaos. I concluded that my vision of God was too small - that he is not limited by what he told Abraham and the other prophets. It makes me wonder what else there is that we are not yet ready to understand. It make me want to try harder to examine creation and better under. I suspect my vision of God is still too small - I just don't know in what way it is too small, much as Abraham couldn't forsee what we would later learn about chemistry and physics..

Al-Sadr looks to lie low, outlast U.S.

Al-Sadr personally may not survive us but people who think like him will outlast the dominant American presence in Iraq - barring some sort of nuclear disaster, there will always be radical anti-western Shiites in Iraq and we will not always have large numbers of troops there.

So the question is not "will Sadr's ilk outlast us in Iraq?" - the question is "Will we leave in place a government that will protect both the rights of the majority and the minorities while having the strength and determination to deal with extremists whether they are Shiite or Sunni or Iranian/Syrian invaders?"

If we want that question answered in such a way that American interests will be protected and those Iraqis who have supported us will not slaughtered then we cannot just pick up and leave on any arbitrary time table.

Can George Bush be the "Father of democracy" in Iraq?

A question arose on Free Republic today about George Bush and how he would be viewed in the future. It was suggested that he would be viewed not just as a liberator but as the father of democracy in Iraq.

I don't think you can have a foreign father of democracy. Lafyette was critical to the American revolution and Marshal was critical to democracy in Germany but in the end it is the people in the country who decide whether what unites them is greater than what divides and the "father of democracy" or the new dictator arises from the people.

I hope for the best and totally oppose cut and run but it does not look good for Iraq.

The Shiite/ Sunni split is enormous - imagine if the Christian Church had an eternal battle between the decedents of Jesus and the followers of Jesus' chosen apostle. Could an outsider "fix" that problem?"

The other problem is George Washington's are so damn rare.

Conservative priorities following midterm elections

We need:

1. To get the budget deficit greatly reduced.
2. Comprehensive border security with non-amnesty illegal alien planning.
3. To convince the military and the people that we have a better Iraq strategy that cannot include cut/run.
4. To head off the Democratic impulse for new spending.
5. Except we need to restore science funding - these innovations drive the economy more than any other funding.
6. No additional intrusions into personal privacy.

Peace Keeping Force in Lebanon

Even though the United States, Europe and Israel (reluctantly) have agreed to an international peace keeping force in Lebanon, no one is rushing to contribute troops. Perhaps they are remembering the last time U.S. Marines were put there as peace keepers.

I'll go on record right now and say I absolutely do not want our men and women sitting in the middle as peace keepers when there isn't a peace to keep.

Terrorists are lobbing rockets into cities trying to hit civilians while hiding behind civilians and counting on the better character of the Israelis.

The proper question isn't "do we contribute troops to a peace keeping force?" The right question is "Mr. Prime Minister, do you need the assistance of the American military in any capacity to assist in the battle to eliminate the missile threat to your cities?" Its what we would do for any other ally. Imagine if Canada were under attack and a third of the country was living in bomb shelters - what would we do to help?

A mushroom cloud rises from the rubble of a U.S. barracks at Beirut International Airport after a suicide bomber drove a truck into its lobby and detonated it, collapsing the structure and killing 241 American servicemen. - 1983 - (Photo and caption from Wikipedia)

Council on Foreign Relations - Whose Side Are They On?

I was asked today to expand on recent on recent comments the the Concil on froeign Realtions gets unfair criticism on the issues of borders, national security and American svoereignty.

Oddly enough, the CFR has been pushing plan to greatly increase border security and Homeland Security and yet the urban legend is that they favor open borders and combining The United States with Canada and Mexico - they get a bad rap sometimes when they don't deserve it.

Sure. I have some disagreements with the Council on Foreign Relations on immigration - specifically I don't think they take the problem of the existing illegal population seriously enough - their position on existing illegals is similar to the President's whereas I favor a harder line.

But, if you read message boards and blogs you could get the impression that the CFR is for abandoning U.S. sovereignty and supports open borders when that is completely false.

The CFR has long been on record as wanting increased border protection - they have a position paper calling for a high tech security screen all around the united State with no-one going in or out with a government issued electronic I.D.

This will require cooperation with the Mexican and Canadian governments which allows some pundits to mischaracterize the CFR position. The CFR also uses the word "community" to describe the three nation cooperation and that terms is often claimed to somehow mean they want open borders.

This is document in question. Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010

The title sounds scary but people who criticize this document seldom quote from it because a through read makes it clear that the CFR endorses strong border security and and is completely respectful of U.S. sovereignty.

Here are the key points

>>Develop a border pass for North Americans. The chairs propose a border pass, with biometric indicators, which would allow expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout North America. "The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically reducing the need for physical scrutiny of traffic, travel, and trade within North America."<<

>>Adopt a unified Border Action Plan. The three governments should "strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so no matter which country he elects to enter first. "First steps should include: harmonized visa and asylum regulations; joint inspection of container traffic entering North American ports; and synchronized screening and tracking of people, goods, and vessels, including integrated "watch" lists. Security cooperation should extend to counterterrorism and law enforcement, and could include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center and joint training for law enforcement officials.<<

The Homeland Security Department has now adopted a very similar proposal

>>National Border Patrol Strategy

Published March 28, 2005

Created by the Department of Homeland Security/Customs and Border Protection, this Strategy seeks "operational control of (the US') border, and particularly...borders with Mexico and Canada" by means of personnel, technology, increased checkpoints,enforcement, and intelligence, and changes in command structure.<<

Homeland Security Depatment National Border Patrol Strategy

It's totally fair to criticize the CFR (or anybody else) if they suggest something foolish or short sighted but it is troubling to see them criticized on borders when they are a strong voice for secure borders and protecting sovereignty.

My Islamic Plumber

We have a home warranty and today they assigned a plumber to fix a couple of toilets. There were some complications so we had a long while to talk - it was very eye opening.

The plumber is a polite guy, born and raised in Atlanta as a Baptist about 5 miles from where I grew up. He is a convert to Islam and says he attends the largest mosque in Atlanta.

Some of the things he said just blew me away and I wanted to share. This isn't somebody from a foreign country - he is a native Georgian.

He said (and he was very matter of fact about all this as if none of it would possibly be disputed)

1. There was no way 9/11 was done by Muslims. Bin Laudin always claims responsibility when he does something and he said right away he didn't do it. Everybody at the mosque knows the tapes where he supposedly said he did it were unintelligible and the translation was fake. Nobody at the mosque thinks Muslims could do 9/11. You have to look at who benefitted - we didn't benefit. The people who want war and wire tapping benefitted.

2. The suicide bombers aren't Muslims. Muslims can't kill women. You can kill a child before you can kill a woman. Jihad has to be fought with your chest - out front, not with your side or your back. I don't know who is doing the bombings but everybody at the mosque is sure it isn't Muslims.

3. The President of Iran is saying those things about Israel and the bomb to get President Bush to attack Iran. He (the Iranian president) doesn't care about his life or the lives of Iranians - he cares about the after-life. A world war is coming and the war with Iran will be part of what sets it up - Syria and Pakistan will join the war on Iran's side.

4.There are millions of people ready to die for Islam. They are all peaceful. Islam means peace. But when it clicks that the final war has started they will die for Islam.

5. Ayatollah Khomeni captured the Shah of Iran and castrated him and paraded his head through the streets. (Historical note - the Shah died in Egypt after President Carter's decision to allow him into the United States for treatment triggering the embassy takeover, hostage crisis and the most screwed up rescue operation in U.S. history.)

6. Muslims are peaceful people who just want to live a simple life. But when people stop them from living that life, when people won't leave them alone, they have to fight. They have to jihad.

7. "I just wish we could have one generation of peace for my children to live for a while before it starts."

It boggles my mind how two guys who grew up so close together could wind up so far apart. I didn't even try to change his mind about anything - that train has left the station.

Well, actually I did tell him that I was certain that Al Quaida was behind 9/11 and that we had identified all the hijackers but it had no effect.

This experience left me feeling quite pessimistic. I just don't understand how this set of beliefs are possible.

25 Years ago today President Reagan was shot

There are many sad things about that day, but one hopeful memory stands out for me.

I was in American history class when we found out. The history teacher was extremely liberal. When we heard President Reagan had been shot some of the students began to cheer.

The teacher became furiously angry with them demanding that they shut up and show respect for our President and our country. When she calmed down she explained that when we face hostility it is key that all Americans band together if we want our country to survive.

It was an important lesson.

Pub has to pay a fine for murder from 1664 - and how it relates to smoking

The Times Online reports A PUB must pay a fine for a murder on its premises more than 300 years ago.

Auditors discovered the long-forgotten penalty for The Swan in Ipswich, Suffolk, while balancing the books for the town’s St Mary Le Tower Church Charities.

The annual bill of 40 shillings, equivalent to £2, seems to be a punishment for a killing in 1664 when Charles II was king.
---------
It was a huge amount of money in 1664 — a labourer would have to work for six months to earn 40 shillings.
------------------------------------------------
Whenever we discuss smoker's rights the topic of bans on smoking in restaurants always comes up.

One side argues that private property rights should permit the restaurant owner to allow smoking if he chooses.

The other side usually focuses on the risk posed by second hand smoke.

I thought the case above was interesting because it showed a tavern owner being legally responsible for the safety of the patrons of a pub open to the public -what we would call today a place of public accommodation. That's basically like modern laws - They made the pub responsible for the safety of their customers.

Although as a person who favors small government, I can't say I'm happy about looking for old claims through history and making descendants pay up - we already have too many lawsuits.

Double helix found in space - Intelligent design?

">Is there any significance to a nebula in the shape of DNA?

Rules for security clearances for gays modified

The Backcountry Conservative blog has an article about the rules for security clearances for homosexuals being modified. The new changes mean clearances cannot be denied "solely on the basis of the sexual orientation of the individual.

On the surface, the Bush administration seems to be compromising when they say that homosexual relationships "strictly private, consensual and discreet" could "mitigate security concerns." This seems in line with Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

But there is an additional factor with regard to security clearances vulnerability to blackmail. It is often a condition of a security clearance that anything (like homosexuality or cross dressing or prior drug use) be disclosed to those around the applicant so he will not be vulnerable to blackmail.

It appears that the Bush administration has recipe to keep homosexuals out of all military positions that require security a clearance. If the "tell" they are out of the military. If they "don't tell" they are vulnerable to blackmail and not eligible to get the security clearance needed for key assignments.

Latino suffering from Katrina

An article in the Santa Maria Times begins: "We didn't need another report to tell us that there was negligence and mismanagement in the federal government's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, but we got it anyway.

We didn't need a video showing us that the Federal Emergency Management Agency and President Bush had been briefed ahead of time about the eminent threat Katrina posed to New Orleans - it was obvious from the start.

What we had not seen until now is to what extent Latinos were unfairly treated before and after the devastating hurricane hit the Gulf Coast."

I am very sorry that our Latino citizens and legal residents suffered from the worst natural disaster to hit the U.S. As a Christian, I am also sorry that the illegals got hurt.

And I sympathize with concerns about the efficiency of aid delivery. Even in those areas where there was competent local government we are still talking about a gigantic Federal bureaucracy and we all know those have inefficiencies.

But I reject claims that we are not spending enough, we are spending billions upon billions.

And I reject efforts to use the disaster as an excuse to attach liberal social policy whether it's seizing legal guns in New Orleans or demanding affirmative action for the boards of charities. I reject the premise that illegal aliens should be guarenteed extra labor rights - they are in the country illegally and they need to leave.

But I'm really sorry that any part of the American family got hurt and I hope they recover as much as possible. The Latino community shares the traditional American work ethic so there is every reason to be hopeful.

The politics of (hurricane) destruction

It was pointed out to me today that Mayor Nagin of New Orleans is sticking very close to President Bush after previously being unreasonably critical of the President, denying any personal responsibility and claiming the CIA might kill him for criticizing the President.

Maybe Nagin thinks that the CIA can't get to him if he is inside the Secret Service ring... :)

President Bush on the other hand has avoided personal attacks and focused on correcting problems and getting results... now if he could only find offsets for the new spending.

In-state rates for illegal immigrants challenged

WASHINGTON – Nearly 4,000 Texas students would face a major tuition hike or loss of state financial aid if a conservative legal group successfully challenges a state law that has made college affordable for many illegal immigrants.

Well, that would be one way to put it. Another way would be that 4000 illegal immigrants are taking subsidized slots that are supposed to be reserved for in-state citizens.

Yet another way would be to say that 4,000 people have been caught stealing from the tax payers.

"Let's just call it what it really is," said Adrian Rodriguez, Texas LULAC's chief of staff. "This isn't about human rights for all of the citizens of the United States. This is about bigotry and racism."

Well, it is biased in that it favors people who are legitimately in the country but it has nothing to do with bigotry or race - many Texas citizens and legal residents are also of Mexican decent (about half, in fact)- every illegal who takes a slot could just as easily be taking it from someone else of the same race but who isn't breaking the law.

Another reason it's not about race is that the suit is directed at all illegals, not just illegals from Mexico... they could be British or Canadian but if they are not citizens then we should not be subsidizing their education.

Top 10 flaws in the conservative agenda- part 2

5. The "war on drugs" - Nobody rational thinks cocaine and heroine should be legal because widespread use would constitute a clear and present danger to the Republic. But at the same time it isn't rational to fill up the prisons with non-violent users of soft drugs who just wanted to quietly get intoxicated. We might as well have a "war on saturated fat" for all the good that does.

4. Writing off the blue states. Yes, the majority rules in a democracy but in our Republic minorities have rights too. A conservative seeking to live his life without being oppressed in a blue state is just as valuable and just as many rights as if he lived in a solid red state.

3. Attacking dissenters. One important principles is for each person to be true to his beliefs even in the face of a majority who disagrees. You didn't see Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan changing their position because of some new poll. When a conservative breaks with the majority of his party on principle we need to respect that and not attack him personally. Otherwise we wind up with only sheep who don't dare think for themselves and a few leaders who think their job is to maintain purity.

2. Falling for the obvious. A mother blames the president for her son's death in Iraq. Conservative bloggers quickly go after her. Someone suggests the Teletubbies are gay - conservatives quickly want them banned. The Dixie Chicks say they are ashamed to be from the same state as the President - conservatives flood radio station with demands that their songs be banned. These knee jerk reactions to things that "conservatives" don't like just makes the conservative movement look intolerant and foolish. It is so predictable. And here in Atlanta when the bloggers discredited one grieving mother, the newspaper just picked a different grieving mother to focus on and the conservatives look both vicious and ineffective. These people are allowed to speak and if we disagree we should argue our side, not fall for the obvious and go for the censorship knockout.

1. Being mean in general. It is one thing to disagree. It is another to attack those who disagree. President Bush43 gets this - that is why he is President. Conservatism means respecting traditional rights and values not about hurting others. It feels like too many conservative pundits enjoy the battle more than the principles. On the biggest conservative board you can be banned for suggesting looking inward - if we treat those who disagree decently we don't need to be afraid to look inward.

Top 10 flaws in the conservative agenda

10. Privacy - the abortion debate debate has led conservatives to argue that there is not right to privacy - nothing is more conservative that the right to privacy - in our homes, in our cars and in our persons.

9. Equating conservatism with the religious right. Not all conservatives wish to impose morality on others. many conservatives recognize the right individual choices and then taking responsibility for those choices. Even Barry Goldwater was attacked and ostracized for addressing this point.

8. Intelligent Design: I believe in intelligent design - God is intelligent and he designed the universe. But ID has become a means to sneak religion into public schools. This is bad because it is dishonest and it is bad because it requires attacking science and makes conservatives look backwards. If we want religion in public schools we should change the constitution to allow it personal expression of religion anywhere including school.

7. Global warming. The earth is warming - it really is. Conservatives are wasting their time arguing that global warming is a myth when 100+ years of scientific evidence and the U.S government say the climate is getting warmer. Conservatives should refocus on the cause of the warming - if it is not man-made then it may not be in our power to stop it and while the Kyoto accords may be useless the problem is still real.

6.The relationship with minorities: Lincoln, Republican, freed the slaves (at least that what people believe), and most minority communities share many conservative values but they don't vote conservative? Why? I believe it is because conservatives has lost sight of the importance of individual freedom - this is particularly important if you are a minority. Minorities and conservatives are a natural alliance if we re-focus on individual rights and freedoms - classic conservative values.

Next post - the top five flaws in the conservative agenda.